I have had a difficult time seeing Jupiter in sun in Cancer people.
Are there statistics that show Jupiter ruling Cancer? And say Jupiter spikes in a certain degree of Cancer. What about the other degrees of Cancer lacking the spike in Jupiter or the Moon? What if an individual is born July 30th, and according to information shows July 30th degree of Cancer to have a Mercury-Saturn nature, therefor making his sun not that of Moon or Jupiter but more of their opposite? Is this possible?

As in the other thread, I don't think this is the right question. You can't directly say statistics show Jupiter ruling Cancer, but you can let statistics show other things from which that interpretation or inference can be drawn. Here (based on my current best assessment of Cancer) are Sun in Cancer traits that are consistent with some expressions of Jupiter.

Loves center stage. "Darling of the crowd."

Deep sense of insufficiency, for he lives only on borrowed prestige.

(The most eminent bachelors! N.B. Jupiter theme is interesting in this since Sagittarius and Pisces were the next most common.)

"A friend in need." Cherishes friendships and fulfills his obligations to friends willingly.

GAUQUELIN CHARACTER TRAITS include Mystic, kind, generous.

YOUTHFUL ACHIEVEMENT: Highest for 5,738 young men of achievement and 7,694 young women of achievement. In their youth, they tend to be regarded as having enormous potential and recognized achievement, not necessarily proportionate to how that potential manifests later in their lives.

POLITICS: High for 5,146 political scientists, 432 labor leaders, and 5,013 nonpolitical Federal employees. In contrast, Cancer was significantly low for one collection of 1,052 politicians, and has only produced one U.S. President. (In possible contrast, it was significantlh high for 91 heads of state - all the world heads of state for one year in the 1970s which I extracted from the World Almanac for that year.)

I though there would be like a common denominator that obviously shows Jupiter, such as under the Sun in Sagittarius, having the same wording. I thought sun in Sagittarius and Cancer would share the same observations word for word, pointing to Jupiter.
Its easier for me to see the similarities between sun in Taurus and sun in Cancer than Sun in Cancer and Sun in Sagittarius. Which makes me think of the Moon, not Jupiter. I also see the similarities between Sun in Pisces and Sun in Cancer more than I do Sun in Sagittarius with either of those. Which makes me think Sag is the only Jupiter ruled sign and/ or Sag is ruled by more than Jupiter. In fact, It is sometimes easier for me to detect Hub, Spoke and Rim than planetary ruler ship. Or I need to focus more on the "ego". Ego=Sun. How often does one show ego. Some less than others.

I though there would be like a common denominator that obviously shows Jupiter, such as under the Sun in Sagittarius, having the same wording.

Or another view is that Cancer and Sagittarius are expressions of two different sides of Jupiter. One is a Spoke, one a Rim. One is un-Mercury, the other is un-Mars and un-Saturn.

I thought sun in Sagittarius and Cancer would share the same observations word for word, pointing to Jupiter.

No, none of the shared dignities have this characteristic. One shouldn't conclude (for example) that Cancer is like Sagittarius but, rather, than Cancer and Sagittarius are (each in its own way) like Jupiter (among other factors).

Its easier for me to see the similarities between sun in Taurus and sun in Cancer than Sun in Cancer and Sun in Sagittarius.

So you're seeing the shared lunar characteristic. Also, both Taurus and Cancer are un-Mars, though the Rim vs. Hub difference is significant.

You apparently aren't used to seeing the "putting on airs," hoyty-toyty, identifying with elitism, being deeply concerned about friends and one's appearance, and traits arising from deep inner struggles with insufficiency that Cancer usually displays.

Okay, I will have to think of an analogy so to understand more. Because if I were doing a science experiment, like finding out what an object is made of, specifically, then I could delineate the elements making up the object. Like x is made of 40% iron, 30% copper, 15% nickle, and so on. But that can be checked, proven, no one can disagree with that.

Sometimes I agree with the collected data on the forum and I can relate more than less. Other times I see things differently and need to question, or accept, my own intuition. I cannot say for sure 100%, anything, besides following my own path. I would rather follow myself and make a mistake than follow someone else and regret not following myself. I would rather make my own mistakes. And of course, I can't say someone else's interpretations are wrong. If you see Jupiter in Cancer, and many others do too, then its more easily accepted. I just wonder if people are just agreeing more so because they can't tell either way what's true. Like being persuaded. Like how does anyone know what Jupiter is, or any planet, to be able to recognize it? I can be like, so and so act similar, then make a story out of it. Is it their environment, genes, their race, class, gender. Italians are hot headed! People have said say., okay so are Italians Martians?
What is the process to learn archetypes or whatever this is? Oh yeah, birth info. So I guess I need to make my own connections. Does it not have to begin with awareness? Then we have to define the terms and teach how to be aware of it all. Like in Buddhism, they run through how to meditate and train awareness step by step. There isn't anything on the forum like a step by step tutorial. Its just like, people just accept the terms. Which is either because we can relate, or because its empty. I need to answer my own questions, because I think we can only answer our own questions.
Then there is the question of origin. Where did our ancestors get this information. It seems more like an evaluation than an observation. If we just observe the stars, we do not see an archetype. If we observe our self, is there an archetype. Do we not just make a story of it?

Exactly. The forum isn't a text book. It was created, in part, to publish the best interpretation text available at any given point in time, in addition to existing as a conversation.

But it isn't a text book. Other such books already exist, and, if I live long enough, I eventually will have a comprehensive "A to Z" type book of Sidereal astrology. It will take years more to get there, though.

Meanwhile, to answer your question of how we know what Jupiter means, we do have (in addition to our own observations) a starting point in the Gauquelin data. People in that collection of eminent professionals (which BTW might bias the results to the way Jupiter appears in the charts of successful people, rather than all people) had others' writings about them include the following ideas with statistically significant frequency:

But how did Gauqelin get his data. Where did the data come from? Is he like Moses, on the mountain. Then how do we check his data to see if its accurate? What tool do we have to measure archetypes or to say, okay, he's absolutely correct?

But how did Gauqelin get his data. Where did the data come from? Is he like Moses, on the mountain. Then how do we check his data to see if its accurate? What tool do we have to measure archetypes or to say, okay, he's absolutely correct?

That's a pretty antagonistic response and, mostly, means that you simply don't know about his work. There are whole books written to answer this question - it's not a short answer. My favorite are The Cosmic Clocks and, especially, Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior; I suggest you get and read the latter and maybe both.

Going from ,y memory, he got his data originally by touring Europe to check public birth records on the eminent individuals he was researching - large groups of hundreds to thousands of people at the top of their professions in fields such as athletics, acting, science, medicine, literature, and others. This took many years in the early '50s.

To check his data, you'd have to similarly find when and where the eminent individuals were born and similarly consult the local sites where the birth records are kept.

BTW, his methods have been vetted. He was Sorbonne trained, and submitted his original work back to the Sorbonne for confirmation and critique. His basic research methods were confirmed sound and correct. Though one contingency of the skeptical, anti-astrology scientific community attacked him in the latter part of his life, claiming his work was flawed or fraudulent, it was eventually discovered that they were the ones falsifying data and defrauding. Others, such as the eminent Dr. Hans Eysenck, have vouched for Gauquelin's methods and confirmed his results.

Tools to measure archetypes? You can't measure archetypes. Archetypes are neither physical nor, in any other sense, concrete.

Absolutely correct? There's no such confirmation available on any single datum anywhere in the human experience. On everything we take as "so," we're deal with juggling, at best, relatively high probabilities that a particular thing is so. For example, neither you nor I know for sure that you are, in fact, who you sa you are But I'm willing to vest considerable confidence in the likelihood that you are at least a reasonable facsimile thereof.